Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of United States imperialism

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, 17k, 3d, 1m. No votes discounted including red users who have sufficient contribs. -Splash 01:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of United States imperialism

• Delete This article is flawed beyond reason. The very title makes that clear. I suggest deleting it and merging any bits of useful content into other appropriate articles. Afcassidy 01:05, 02 Jul 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It is a widely accepted theory. ‡ Jarlaxle July 2, 2005 05:37 (UTC)

• Delete Obviously this is an extremely biased article...it is subversive to the intended purpose of Wikipedia. This article is full of opinion and subjective rhetoric intended to fulfill a divisive partisan agenda. Khatores 03:27, 02 Jul 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. American imperialism is a very established concept in American history. In fact, there're chapters in most American history books titled "A New Empire," etc. Or what else do you call Manifest Destiny and the Spanish-American War? You might want to take a look at decolonization. It's a valid topic, but that's not to say it's NPOV (I haven't given it a good look). But, VfD is not the place for POV disputes. --Dmcdevit 4 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
• Keep. Biased, perhaps, but factually correct and the subject is very much encyclopedic. If you feel that it has NPOV issues, that's another matter entirely different from VfD, as mentioned by Dmcdevit. Fernando Rizo 6 July 2005 09:05 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Interesting and useful. The cultural imperialism section could do with some improvement. The US has been more invasive in this area than militarily or politically. JamesBurns 6 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
• Keep but watch for maintaining NPOV. Perhaps a less emotionally charged title could be found for it, since "imperialism" has often been overused by people opposed to U.S. foreign policy (many Soviet and Khomeini-era Iranian officials seemed unable to mention the United States without using some form of the word "imperialist"). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 6 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This is not the proper way to resolve NPOV disputes. --Moritz 6 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)
• Keep Most objection seems to come from the use of the term imperialism & the negative perception of this term. The article itself seems fairly even handed stating mostly that some believe this or that some historians have stated that. It could do with some more references & the boxer rebellion section could be cut down significantly though as it doesn't touch on the USA actions in China for most of it. Some treatment of the modern extent of US military power & bases could be useful if properly NPOV presented & also arguments/reasons why the USA interventions/actions noted aren't imperialist but were motivated by some other causes. AllanHainey 6 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
• Keep. Our Imperialism article says "Imperialism is a policy of extending the control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires, either through direct territorial or through indirect methods of exerting control on the politics and/or economy of other countries." The word imperialism may have negative connotations, but it is not in-itself POV. TheCoffee 6 July 2005 10:30 (UTC)

By the way, I speak as a citizen of the Philippines, a former colony of the United States. TheCoffee 6 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

• weak keep, this is a flawed article , its flaws mostly stemming from pov issues. Needs a big big rewrite. for instance 'the US is desribed as occupying 'the western zone of germany for ten years', this is silly cuz:

a: there wasn`t one but three western zones, of which one was US occupied b: the FRG started in 1949, the US can not have kept it 'occupied', although there was ofcourse, a military presence. --Isolani 6 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)

• Keep Well researched and written. It has been in Wiki for some years without adverse comment. A do not think the negative concepts of the name are reason to VfD this.--Porturology 6 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)
• Keep Will this one ever have a NPOV? Lectonar 6 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)
• Keep but someone should seriously look at merging this article and Anti-American sentiment into a single, well researched, NPOV piece on how and why the US is percieved as imperialistic and/or not liked overseas. -Harmil 6 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
  • No offense, but I think that's a really bad idea. The two articles might be related, but I really don't think they can be merged. The one is historical, the other sociological. --Moritz 6 July 2005 16:27 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with TheCoffee that "The word imperialism may have negative connotations, but it is not in-itself PV." Obviously, discussion of one of the most important trends in world history should be in WP, and this is the proper name for such an article IMO. The article itself may have NPOV issues, although I personally think it looks fine, but in any event, that is not a VfD discussion. Dcarrano July 6, 2005 19:17 (UTC)
• Keep promising if imperfect article on a major topic. CalJW 6 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
• Keep, the US was nakedly imperialist in its foreign policy from ~1800 to 1933. Beyond that, normal NPOV policies apply Gazpacho 6 July 2005 20:18 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know what else the historic US relationship with the Canal Zone, Phillipines, Puerto Rico, Guam etc. could be called. However, delete the references to the Mexican-American War, Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, Hawaii, the Confederacy, and Manifest Destiny, which would be POV to call "imperialism." Kaibabsquirrel 7 July 2005 00:54 (UTC)

  Under NPOV policy we should explain the view that they are imperialism, not remove them. I, for one, think there are very good cases for the LP, Hawaii, and MD. Gazpacho 7 July 2005 02:02 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. - Mustafaa 7 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
• Delete unless you can NPOV it to an acceptable point (it looks beyond help at this point). -Uris 04:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with American Empire. No need for two bad, POV articles: let's get them in one place, and fix them there. Use the title "American Empire", with "history" as a section. Is the label "American Empire" POV? George Washington didn't think so. [1] --Kevin Myers 07:14, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.